"A former homosexual who has
carried on an effective ministry for five years among homosexuals reported,
'I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm love relationship
with his father.'" (The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone
Should Know About Homosexuality, pages 71-76) Email
replies welcome.

Introduction:

1.How can I prevent my children from becoming homosexual?

a.There
is a "vaccination" for homosexuality!

b.But
first, you must realize that no one is born homosexual and being homosexual is
a moral choice.

c."How many psychologists does it take to change a light
bulb? The answer: Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.
Many pastors, like Carl, find this to be true with homosexuals. The number one criterion for the success in crisis
intervention is the desire of the homosexual person to change. Without
that, all the good intentions and techniques by the counselor will have little
effect. That desire to rebuild from ground up evidently was missing in
Ted." (J. D. Berkley, Called into crisis, 1989, Vol. 18, p 103)

2.Less than 1% are homosexual!

a.A new Statistics Canada health survey is the first to
effort to measure the sexual orientation of the population.

b.According to figures from the Canadian Community Health
Survey, released Tuesday June 15, 2004, one per cent of Canadians say they are
homosexual.

c.The Canadian Community Health Survey,
is based on information collected from 135,000 people and is considered to be
extremely accurate.

d.Homosexual activists continue to use the 10% figure, even
though they know is as invalid as it is a deliberate fraudulent.

3.Vaccination for homosexuality? YES!

a.The vaccination for homosexuality is in fact this: Fathers, spend time with your children and hug and kiss
and cuddle them and show them love and affection!

b.While worldly fathers are so afraid to hug, kiss and cuddle
their sons for fear they turn him into a sissy.

c.The opposite is in fact true! Fathers
in the world worry about their sons becoming homosexual and emotionally withdraw
and become tough and macho with their sons. This will actually make your
children more likely to turn into homosexuals!

d.Amazingly, Hollywood movies and sit-coms have begun to cast
their frequent homosexual characters as having normal loving relationships with
their fathers. Just another example of how producers of Hollywood are
attempting to change society's views contrary to the facts of homosexuality.

e."A
former homosexual who has carried on an effective ministry for five years among
homosexuals reported, 'I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm love relationship
with his father.'" (The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should
Know About Homosexuality, pages 71-76)

f.The scientific research contained in a book called, "The Unhappy Gays" confirms this. The book also
makes it clear that homosexuals are "made not born"
homosexual. Fathers play a significant role in the raising of children in many
areas and a father's actions can be critical in preventing his children from
becoming both homosexual or lesbian.

4.Can you cure a Homosexual or a Lesbian?

a.You
cure diseases, but behaviours choices like homosexuality is are changed through
freewill.

b.Homosexuality
is not a mental illness.

c.Homosexuality is not a disease.

d.Homosexuality
is not a determined by DNA.

e.Homosexuals
are made not born.

f.Gay marriage is an abomination before God.

g.Homosexuality
is a sin. So is adultery!

h.You
cure an adulterer the same way you cure a murderer or a homosexual! Change your
behaviour choices!

i.How do you cure a homosexual? Stop committing the sin of
fornication!

j.Homosexuals need to believe that they can actually change their
sexual orientation, but this will require them to realize that the "gay
lobby" has been lying to them about going strait.

What biopsychiatrists, drug companies and governments say about
homosexuality:

1."Clinical studies (Green 1987; Stoller 1968, 1975a, 1975b, 1979)
describe that boys with gender identity disorder often
have an overly close relationship with their mother and
a distant, ambivalent relationship with their father. Stoller (1968)
argued that the boy who is excessively close to his
mother, in absence of the father, may have difficulty in separating
himself from the female body and feminine behavior." (Textbook of
Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 746)

2."Because psychiatrists, particularly white male psychiatrists, are
homophobic - the American Psychiatric Association (APA) once labelled homosexuality as a "mental illness" or
"mental disorder" - and have used forced electroshock on lesbians,
trying to coerce them into adopting a heterosexual life style." (25 good
reasons why psychiatry must be abolished, Don Weitz)

a.""Hot" Controversies For the most part, the preparation
of DSM-1V was remarkably free of controversy. The adoption of the three-stage
method of empirical review replaced passionate argument with the deliberative
poring over and interpretation of piles of tables and figures. Literally
hundreds of questions were settled with consensus decisions that may not have
pleased everyone but were generally regarded as fair and consistent with the
data. The "hot" controversies presented in this chapter did not occur
among the Task Force and the Work Group members but rather were played out in a
larger arena. For the most part, scientific issues were settled without much
controversy. The controversial issues touched on value questions that went far
beyond the diagnostic system and could not be answered with empirical data
currently available. It is of some interest that all of
the hot controversies surrounding DSM-111, DSM-11I-R, and DSM-IV have been in
some way related to sexual orientation or gender. It appears that attempts
to categorize human behavior related to such sensitive topics are inherently
fraught with the potential to arouse widespread interest and disagreement. In
this chapter, we present our perspective on the decision-making process about
how best to handle two controversial categories included in DSM-11I-R Appendix
A: late luteal phase dysphoric disorder and self-defeating personality
disorder. The fate of these categories became at least temporarily the focus of
extensive media coverage. It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that
the issues involved in these controversies were presented in an often distorted
fashion seemingly intended to highlight acrimony rather than to offer a
balanced perspective of the pros and cons. Although we are mindful that our own
views may be biased by our close participation in these discussions, it may
nonetheless be useful to provide an insider's view of the process and substance
of these controversies." (DSM-IV-TR
Guidebook, 2004 AD, p 427)

3."There are no well-established or
exhaustive explanations for the development of gender identity disorder.
As noted earlier in this chapter, gender identity appears to be established and
influenced by psychosocial factors during the first few years of life. However,
many authors have argued that biological factors, if not causative, may
predispose an individual to a gender identity disorder. It is important to
realize, however, that researchers still have been
unable to identify a biological anomaly or variant associated specifically with
gender identity disorder." (Textbook of
Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 746)

4."Etiology: As with adult gender dysphoria,
the etiology of childhood gender identity disorder is unclear. The theories
outlined earlier in this chapter for adults who have gender identity disorder
also apply to children. Additional factors that have been suggested are
parents' indifference to or encouragement of
opposite-sex behavior; regular cross- dressing as a young boy by a female; lack
of male play-mates during a boy's first years of socialization; excessive
maternal protection, with inhibition of rough-and- tumble play; or absence of
or rejection by an older male early in life (Green 1974). Gender
identity disorder in children has been posited as being the result of child and
family pathology (Zucker and Bradley 1995)." (Textbook of
Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 748)

5."Physical Appearance: Fridell (1996) concluded that girls with
gender identity disorder often were seen as less attractive than those in a
control group." (Textbook of
Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 749)

6."Course: Retrospective studies of transsexuals
(Green 1974) have shown a high incidence of
childhood cross-gender behavior. Follow-up studies of children with
gender identity disorder have found a high incidence of continued
manifestations in adulthood, with a higher incidence of homosexual or bisexual
behavior and fantasies than those in a control group (Green 1985)." (Textbook of Clinical
Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 749)

After being hit in the face with
a fruit pie, she started to pray seconds later:

"Father,
I want to ask that you forgive him and that we love him and that we're
praying for him to be delivered from his deviant lifestyle." (Des
Moines, Iowa, October 14, 1977)

What Causes Homosexuality? THE UNHAPPY GAYS pages 71-76

Returning again to the subject of
temperament, I would like to reinforce my statement that not all those with
predominant Melancholy temperaments in the arts, etc., are homosexual. I
introduced the concept here not to embarrass or burden people with a Melancholy
temperament, but to encourage parents of Melancholy children to go out of their
way to love them. I have noticed that every homosexual I have encountered or
have discussed with other counselors possesses an enormous hunger for love.
This powerful drive to love and to attract love is typical not only of
homosexuals but of Melancholy's.

1.Parents
are easily the most important external force in the life of any child and, as
would be suspected, contribute largely to the homosexual or heterosexual
predisposition of their children. A professor of psychiatry at one of the
nation's leading medical schools stated, "Current research indicates that
the family most likely to produce a homosexual comprises a very intimate,
possessive and dominating mother and a detached, hostile father. Many mothers
of lesbians tend to be hostile and competitive with their daughters. The
fathers of female homosexuals seldom appear to play a dominant role in the
family and have considerable difficulty being openly affectionate with their
daughters."

2.Most
of the new books on homosexuality contain the report by Dr. Irving Bieber, who
studied the family backgrounds of 106 male homosexuals. According to his
discoveries, eighty-one mothers were dominating, sixty-two were overprotective,
sixty-six made the homosexual their favorite child, eighty-two of the fathers
spent very little time with their sons, and seventy-nine maintained a detached
attitude toward them.22

3.As
important as the father is in the life of a child, even he must take second
place to mother during the first three years of life. she feeds the baby at her
breast and spends far more time with him in infancy than does his dad.
Consequently, mothers actually have more to do with producing a predisposition
toward homosexuality than fathers. Two kinds of mothers are particularly
harmful-smother mothers and dominating mothers.

B. Smother Mothers

1.Every
child needs love, but few things are worse than an overprotective, smothering
affection that is showered on an infant, not for his benefit but for the
mother's. Many a love-starved young mother satisfies her love hunger on her
child until he is the primary object in her life. The more she bestows her
affection, time, and attention on her child, the more she neglects her husband.
This may turn him further from her and the child, compounding the problem.

2.Dr.
Howard Hendricks used to say in Family Seminars which he and I held together
that ' ' whenever a mother makes her son number one in her life, she begins to
raise a pervert. " In other words, it is normal for a boy to be number two
in the heart of his mother, for he doesn't feel threatened when he knows father
is number one. But when mother and father cannot preserve a love relationship
and she makes the child number one, he is in trouble. He may begin to identify
with her, take an interest in feminine things, and develop effeminate
mannerisms. Such concerns start early in life and are very difficult to break.
One veteran homosexual in the counseling room complained that his mother was
"overprotective and smothering.'' He illustrated the latter by saying,
"She never hesitated to embarrass me. she thought nothing of unzipping my
pants to tuck in my shirt. Between that and wiping my nose, she was all over
me.''

3.Throughout
history, researchers have repeatedly verified that homosexuals are ''mama's
boys" whose mothers doted on them in their youth. Tchaikovsky,
Michelangelo, and Freud are notable examples. Insecure mothers who have a need
to be needed take out that compulsion on their infant or small child to the
detriment of the child's personality. Some call it love, but it is not! In
reality, it is a form of selfishness, and it probably constitutes one of the
leading causes in the rise of homosexuality.

4.In
recent years it has become fashionable for an unwed mother who heeds the advice
of sexual permissivists to raise her child alone. I always wince when I see
this, not because a mother can't raise her son alone (my brother and I were
raised by a widowed mother, and my brother was only seven weeks old when Father
died, so I know it can be done), but most of those girls have the wrong motive.
They are usually love-starved girls who want something living to love and often
end up "smother loving" a child into a predisposition toward
homosexuality.

C. Dominant Mothers

1.One
of the sociological phenomena of our times is the enormous increase in the
dominant role of the mother and the renunciation by the father of his
responsibility to lead.

2.In
some cases dominance is forced upon women because of an irresponsible husband.
But nothing ruins the sexual adjustment of children more surely than an
oppressive wife and mother.

3.Such
children build up an intense hostility toward the opposite sex that either
makes it difficult for them to show love and affection in marriage or creates a
predisposition toward homosexuality.

D. A Passive or Absent Fathers

1.Father
may only be the secondary influence in the life of his children, but since he
is second in importance, we should consider him carefully. I have never
counseled a homosexual, read one's case history, heard another counselor
discuss a client, or listened to the testimony of a former homosexual but that
I was informed that the deviant had either a bad relationship with his father
or none at all. No doubt some homosexual somewhere has climbed over the
positive force of his father's love and masculine role example to become
homosexual, but in the many cases I have studied, I cannot name one. A father's
most precious gift to his son or daughter is not food, shelter, and education,
but love-and he must prove that love by spending time with his child.

2.A
former homosexual, now a minister who is effectively helping homosexuals out of
their life style, relates a most traumatic childhood experience that shows the
importance of the father. Long before he ever felt a "twinge of
homosexuality," he was out in the garage with his father, overhauling the
car. From under the car came the commanding voice, "Hand me the crescent
wrench." He had no idea what a crescent wrench was, so he replied, "I
can't find it." His hostile father erupted in an angry spirit, sprang to
his feet, and located it in clear view. Cuffing his son on the side of the
head, he called him a vile name, rebuked him for being so stupid, and shouted,
"Go into the house and help your mother with the girls' work. You
obviously aren't cut out for a man's job. " When a small boy's father
claims he is more girl-like than male, what is he to believe? Today, having
shed the homosexual practices of many agonizing years, this man is still
effeminate in his mannerisms, but he struggles valiantly to be accepted as
"straight."

3.Father's
love and approval of his manhood is very important to any boy, particularly one
who manifests other tendencies which may develop a predisposition toward
homosexuality. Dr. Irvin Bieber, a psychiatrist acclaimed by the Miami Herald
as "one of the most authoritative students of homosexuality in
America," said, "Homosexuals are not born that way; they are made
that way largely by their parents. "

4.According
to a nationally known psychiatrist, the background of homosexuals fits a common
pattern. Father is frequently absent from the home, and thus Mother turns to
the boy as an outlet for her emotional needs. A boy needs to identify with his
father's masculinity; we need to bring Father back into the home, and the
father and son must spend time together. A former homosexual who has carried on
an effective ministry for five years among homosexuals reported, "I have counseled
over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm
love relationship with his father."

5.The
best way to stamp out homosexuality in this country is for parents to get back
to the business of making parenthood their priority. Children raised in loving,
well-disciplined homes where Mother and Father are themselves good role models
for their children rarely become homosexual. Unfortunately, unloved children
subjected to the selfish neglect of their parents are vulnerable to a
predisposition toward homosexuality. This year divorce may reach 1,100,000,
bringing to eleven million the number of children to be raised by one parent.
It is estimated that because of divorce, twenty-five to thirty million children
up to eighteen years of age will spend a portion of their childhood raised by
one parent.

6.A
psychiatrist told me, "Every homosexual I know has come from a broken
home." My own experience is not that conclusive but I have found that
every homosexual I know came from an unhappy home where fighting and hatred
abounded between the parents, who usually proceeded with a divorce.

E. Permissive Childhood Training

1.The
most harmful concept in the field of child raising during the past 100 years
has been permissiveness. It is hard to believe that such a destructive doctrine
could catch on so quickly and sweep the country with such force. Although
thoroughly discredited now, it has wrought havoc on millions. Perhaps its
popularity can be attributed to the fact that the discipline of children is
burdensome to parents. But only parental discipline will enable young people to
grow up to become responsible, self-disciplined adults.

2.A
recent study of criminals indicated that those individuals treated to a well-moderated
program of love and discipline in their youth reflected the lowest tendency
toward crime. Interestingly enough, the same would be true of homosexuals. I
have found in digging into their backgrounds that they were either rejected or
pampered as children. I have met only one homosexual who was not a
self-indulgent, self-centered, undisciplined individual. The only motivation
that seems to make them forceful is their pursuit of sexual gratification and
their demand to be accepted by society as "perfectly normal." This
lack of discipline makes it easy for many with a predisposition toward
homosexuality to take up the practice at the first opportunity, and it is
largely the reason they find it so difficult to extricate themselves from it
when they finally wake up to the realization it is an "ungay" life
style.

It is widely agreed that many factors likely contribute to
the formation of male homosexuality. One factor may be the predisposing
biological influence of temperament (Byne and Parsons, l993). No scientific
evidence, however, shows homosexuality to be directly inherited in the sense
that eye color is inherited (Satinover, 1996).

Recent political pressure has resulted in a denial of the
importance of the factor most strongly implicated by decades of previous
clinical research--developmental factors, particularly the influence of
parents. A review of the literature on male homosexuality reveals extensive
reference to the prehomosexual boy's relational problems with both parents
(West 1959, Socarides 1978, Evans 1969); among some researchers, the father-son
relationship has been particularly implicated (Bieber et al 1962, Moberly
1983).

One psychoanalytic hypothesis for the connection between
poor early father-son relationship and homosexuality is that during the
critical gender-identity phase of development, the boy perceives the father as
rejecting. As a result, he grows up failing to fully identify with his father
and the masculinity he represents.

Nonmasculine or feminine behavior in boyhood has been
repeatedly shown to be correlated with later homosexuality (Green, l987, Zuger,
l988); taken together with related factors--particularly the often-reported
alienation from same-sex peers and poor relationship with father--this suggests
a failure to fully gender-identify. In its more extreme form, this same
syndrome (usually resulting in homosexuality) is diagnosed as Childhood
Gender-Identity Deficit (Zucker and Bradley, 1996).

One likely cause for "failure to identify" is a
narcissistic injury inflicted by the father onto the son (who is usually
temperamentally sensitive) during the preoedipal stage of the boy's development.
This hurt appears to have been inflicted during the critical gender-identity
phase when the boy must undertake the task of assuming a masculine
identification. The hurt manifests itself as a defensive detachment from
masculinity in the self, and in others. As an adult, the homosexual is often
characterized by this complex which takes the form of "the hurt little
boy" (Nicolosi, 1991).

During the course of my treatment of ego-dystonic male
homosexuals, I have sometimes requested that fathers participate in their sons'
treatment. Thus I have been able to familiarize myself with some of the
fathers' most common personality traits. This discussion attempts to identify
some clinical features common to those fathers of homosexuals.

For this report, I have focused on sixteen fathers who I
consider typical in my practice--twelve fathers of homosexual sons (mid-teens
to early 30's), and four fathers of young, gender-disturbed, evidently
prehomosexual boys (4- to 7- year-olds). The vast majority of these fathers
appeared to be psychologically normal and, also like most fathers,
well-intentioned with regard to their sons; in only one case was the father
seriously disturbed, inflicting significant emotional cruelty upon his son.

However as a group, these fathers were characterized by the
inability to counter their sons' defensive detachment from them. They felt
helpless to attract the boy into their own masculine sphere.

Clinical Impressions.

As a whole, these fathers could be
characterized as emotionally avoidant. Exploration of their histories revealed
that they had typically had poor relationships with their own fathers. They
tended to defer to their wives in emotional matters and appeared particularly
dependent on them to be their guides, interpreters and spokespersons.

While these men expressed sincere
hope that their sons would transition to heterosexuality, nevertheless they
proved incapable of living up to a long-term commitment to help them toward
that goal. In his first conjoint session, one father cried openly as his
15-year-old son expressed his deep disappointment with him; yet for months
afterward, he would drive his son to his appointment without saying a word to
him in the car.

Further, while they often appeared
to be gregarious and popular, these fathers tended not to have significant male
friendships. The extent to which they lacked the ability for male emotional
encounter was too consistent and pronounced to be dismissed as simply
"typical of the American male." Rather, my clinical impression of these
fathers as a group was that there existed some significant limitation in their
ability to engage emotionally with males.

From their sons' earliest years,
these fathers showed a considerable variation in their ability to recognize and
respond to the boys' emotional withdrawal from them. Some naively reported
their perception of having had a "great" relationship with their
sons, while their sons themselves described the relationship as having been
"terrible." Approximately half the fathers, however, sadly admitted
that the relationship was always poor and, in retrospect, perceived their sons
as rejectingthem from early childhood. Why their sons
rejected them remained for most fathers a mystery, and they could only express
a helpless sense of resignation and confusion. When pushed, these men would go
further to express hurt and deep sadness. Ironically, these
sentiments--helplessness, hurt and confusion--seemed to be mutual; they are the
same expressed by my clients in describing their own feelings in the relationship
with their fathers.

The trait common to fathers of
homosexuals seemed to be an incapacity to summon the ability to correct
relational problems with their sons. All the men reported feeling
"stuck" and helpless in the face of their sons' indifference or
explicit rejection of them. Rather than actively extending themselves, they
seemed characteristically inclined to retreat, avoid and feel hurt. Preoccupied
with self-protection and unwilling to risk the vulnerability required to give
to their sons, they were unable to close the emotional breach. Some showed
narcissistic personality features. Some fathers were severe and capable of
harsh criticism; some were brittle and rigid; overall, most were soft, weak and
placid, with a characteristic emotional inadequacy. The term that comes to mind
is the classic psycholanalytic term "acquiescent" - the acquiescent
father.

Homosexuality is almost certainly
due to multiple factors and cannot be reduced soley to a faulty father-son
relationship. Fathers of homosexual sons are usually also fathers of
heterosexual sons--so the personality of the father is clearly not the sole
cause of homosexuality. Other factors I have seen in the development of
homosexuality include a hostile, feared older brother; a mother who is a very
warm and attractive personality and proves more appealing to the boy than an
emotionally removed father; a mother who is actively disdainful of masculinity;
childhood seduction by another male; peer labelling of the boy due to poor
athletic ability or timidity; in recent years, cultural factors encouraging a
confused and uncertain youngster into an embracing gay community; and in the
boy himself, a particularly sensitive, relatively fragile, often passive
disposition.

At the same time, we cannot ignore
the striking commonality of these fathers' personalities.

In two cases, the fathers were very
involved and deeply committed to the treatment of their sons, but conceded that
they were not emotionally present during their sons' early years. In both cases
it was not personality, but circumstance that caused the fathers' emotional
distance. In one case the father was a surgeon from New Jersey who reported
atteding medical school while trying to provide financial support for his young
family of three children. The second father, an auto mechanic from Arizona,
reported that when he was only 21 years old, he was forced to marry the boy's
mother because she was pregnant. He admitted never loving the boy's mother,
having been physically absent from the home, and essentially having abandoned
both mother and boy. Both fathers, now more mature and committed to
re-establishing contact with their sons, participated enthusiastically in their
therapy. But in both cases, the sons had, by then, become resistant to establishing
an emotional connection with their fathers.

Attempt at Therapeutic Dialogue.

My overall impression of fathers in
conjoint sessions was of a sense of helplessness, discomfort and awkwardness
when required to directly interact with their sons.

These men tended not to trust
psychological concepts and communication techniques and often seemed confused
and easily overwhelmed with the challenge to dialogue in depth. Instructions
which I offered during consultation, when followed, were followed literally,
mechanically and without spontaneity. A mutual antipathy, a stubborn resistance
and a deep grievance on the part of both fathers and sons was clearly
observable. At times I felt myself placed in the position of "mother
interpreter," a role encouraged by fathers and at times by sons. As
"mother interpreter," I found myself inferring feeling and intent
from the father's fragmented phrases and conveying that fuller meaning to the
son, and vice versa from son to father.

Some fathers expressed concern with
"saying the wrong thing," while others seemed paralyzed by fear.
During dialogue, fathers demonstrated great difficulty in getting past their
own self-consciousness and their own reactions to what their sons were saying.
This limited their empathetic attunement to the therapeutic situation, and to
their sons' position and feelings.

As their sons spoke to them, these
fathers seemed blocked and unable to respond. Often they could only respond by
saying that they were "too confused," "too hurt," or
"too frustrated" to dialogue. One father said he was "too
angry" to attend the sessions of his teenage son--a message conveyed to me
by the mother. At the slightest sign of improvement in the father-son
relationship, a few fathers seemed too ready to flee, concluding
"Everything is okay - can I go now?"

Treatment Interventions

Before conjoint father-son sessions
begin, the client should be helped to gain a clear sense of what he wants from
his father. To simply expose the father to a list of complaints is of no value.
He should also decide on a clear, constructive way to ask for this. Such
preparation shifts the son from a position of helpless complaining, to staying
centered on his genuine needs and the effective expression of them.

The Deadly Dilemma.

Eventually, within the course of
conjoint sessions a particular point will be reached which I call "the
deadly dilemma." This deadlock in dialogue--which seems to duplicate the
earliest father-son rupture--occurs in two phases as follows:

Phase 1: With the
therapist's assistance, the son expresses his needs and wants to his father.
Hearing his son, the father becomes emotionally affected, so much so that he
cannot respond to his son's disclosure. He is overwhelmed by his own reactions,
becoming so "angered," "hurt," "upset," or
"confused" that he cannot attend to his son's needs. Blocked by his
own internal reactions, he is unable to give what his son asks of him.

Phase 2: In turn, the
son is unable to tolerate his father's insular emotional reaction in place of
the affirmative response he seeks from him. To accept his father's
non-responses, the son feels he must abandon the needs he has expressed. The
only recourse for the son is to retreat again to the defensive distancing which
is already at the core of the father-son relationship. The son cannot empathize
with the father's non-responsiveness because to do so is painfully reminiscent
of childhood patterns that are associated with his own deep hurt and anger:
namely the imperative, "My father's needs must always come before
mine." The son's hurt and anger is in reaction to what appears to him to
be "just more lame excuses" for Dad's inability to give the
attention, affection or approval he has so long desired from him. Indeed, to
the son this seems like Dad's old ploy, with all the associated historical
pain.

This deadly dilemma originated, I
believe, during the preverbal level of infancy. As one father's recollections
confirmed, "My son would never look at me. I would hold his face with my
hands and force him to look at me, but he would always avert his eyes."
Other men have described an "unnatural indifference" to their fathers
during their growing-up years.

During the course of therapy with
these fathers, I began to see the deep hurt in them--a hurt that came
from their sons' indifference to their attempts (however meager) to improve the
relationship.

Reflecting on his now-elderly
father, one client sadly recalled:

"I feel sorry for my father.
He always had a certain insensitivity, an emotional incompetence. Many of the interactions
at home simply went over his head. He was dense, inadequate. I feel a pity for
him."

These fathers appeared unwilling or
unable to be open and vulnerable to their sons; unable to reach out, to hear
their sons' pain and anger with respect to them, and unable to respond
honestly. Their emotional availability was blocked and they were unable to turn
the relational problem around. Rather they remained removed, seemingly
dispassionate and helpless.

In conjoint sessions, none of the
fathers were incapable of taking the lead in dialogue. When dialogue became
stagnant, they were unable to initiate communication. I believe the consistent
inability of these fathers to get past their own blocks and reach out to
their sons played a significant role in these boys' inability to move forward
into full, normal masculine identification and heterosexuality.

Reasons why it is wrong to legalize gay marriage and why
bill C-250 is an attack upon Christian’s freedom of speech.

1.Some politicians say they must legalize gay
marriage because the UN has said so. The UN doesn’t have the right to determine
human rights because this would infringe upon the Sovereignty of Canada.
Therefore, just because the UN wants to grant special status to homosexuals,
doesn’t mean Canada must also. Legalizing gay marriage, therefore, is a choice
the Liberal government of Canada has made.

2.Marriage is not an “inalienable right”, nor is
it a “benefit right”. Marriage has always been a discriminatory institution.
The proof of this is the fact that brothers and sisters or cousins are
forbidden to marry. So forbidding homosexuals from marrying is also constitutional.
What is even more puzzling is that the prohibition against homosexuals and
siblings/cousins/incest originated with Christians strictly on moral grounds
found in the Bible. If two heterosexual consenting cousins can be discriminated
against and be prevented from marrying, then so too can homosexuals.

3.Bill C-250, will protect sexual orientation in
general, without specifying which ones. Pedophilia and homosexuality are
equally protected by Canadian law. Gay activists reply by saying that pedophiles
cannot marry consenting minors because such is actually prohibited by “other
laws” and such is not seen as a violation of the “charter of rights”. This
proves that the “other laws” that prohibit gay marriage and such are not a
violation of the charter of rights. The USA is presently changing the
constitution to forever forbid gay marriage proving it has nothing to do with
equality.

4.Parliament does not have the right to redefine
marriage, simply because it recognized marriage at confederacy and it deserved
the protection from the state. The Fathers of confederacy recognized that
marriage already existed and it deserved to be protected and they merely
supplied the definition that already existed. Since the government issues birth
certificates, it does not have the right to determine what a human is by virtue
of issuing birth certificates. If parliament redefines marriage, they may be in
“patent violation” by using the same trade name “Marriage” with different
ingredients! Canada doesn’t hold the patent to Marriage, it is merely operating
under a “trade license” granted us from a higher power. (God) For Canada to
change the definition of marriage, is like manufacturing cans labeled “Coke”
under trade license, but when you drink it, it tastes like coffee. Remember,
the Jean Chretien ran for the office of prime minister, not the office of God.
He has no right to change the definition of marriage.

5.The gay agenda on one hand, wants the Bible
labeled as hate literature because, they say, it clearly condemns homosexual
activity, then on the other hand, they stand beside their various church
leaders who say the Bible does not condemn homosexual sex, and that it is a
matter of Bible interpretation. They will preach it both ways whenever they need
to. This is as dishonest as it is hypocritical, because the Bible’s
condemnation of homosexual sex is as clear as its condemnation of adultery or
murder. (Lev 18:22-23; Lev 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:9-10; Rom 1:26-27). The
complete lack of integrity of these same homosexual theologians, is seen in
that Jesus actually defined marriage as a union between a male and a female and
He said this is the definition that has existed since the beginning of time.
(Matthew 19:4-6)

6.Pro-Gay agenda theologians say the Bible
doesn't really condemn homosexual sex and quote passages where we are commanded
to “love all men” ... including homosexuals. This is as illogical as it is
irrelevant, because God loves the sinners whom He will send to eternal hell for
punishment. Jesus words, "If you love Me, you will obey me." Show
that it is homosexuals who are not loving Jesus by living in direct
disobedience to His moral instructions. So yes, God and Christians love all
men, including homosexuals murders and rapists. God loves the person but hates
the sin... Homosexuality is sin.

7.Christians have good reason to fear Bill
C-250. Liberal MP, Beth Phinney did not give any reassurances that Christians
would be protected from prosecution if they publicly criticized homosexual sex.
She said this scary thing: “What if what you write causes someone to murder or
beat up a homosexual?” The reply, “Is someone guilty of inciting hate against
“adulterers” if they publicly criticized adultery as sin and someone reads this
and murders their adulteress spouse?” Of course not, a little common sense is
needed here. The conclusion is the Liberal government's Bill C-250 is indeed,
all about silencing anyone who opposes the gay agenda. It is a clear violation
of religious freedom of speech.

8.Bill C-250 is not about Gay rights, because
they were already protected before the constitution was changed by Trudeau.
Bill C-250 is about silencing, by threat of jail, anyone who condemns the
homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, elected officials who refuse to openly oppose
Bill C-250, are not only supporting it by their silence, they are doing exactly
what the author of the Bill intended, not criticizing the homosexual agenda.
These politicians are not only agreeing with the bill, but are already obeying
it with their silence before it is passed.

9.In some Muslim dominated countries where
Shariah law is in place, Christians are told they must not sing any louder than
can be heard outside the walls of the church buildings. Christians are told
they must keep their Christianity to themselves and will be thrown in jail if
they preach to anyone outside their home or church buildings. This is a
reprehensible violation of religious freedom. Well Bill C-250 will create the
same situation right here in Canada by making it illegal to label homosexual
sex as sin and an abomination to Jesus Christ. Here is the paradox: The
Christian's religious freedom of speech, will be violated in Canada, via Bill
C-250, not by some repressive Islamic government, but by the humanistic and
secular government of Canada. Two extremes, same result. In both cases
Christians are persecuted and prevented from expressing their faith in public.

10.The gay agenda has knowingly deceived the
public into thinking that 10% of the population are gay, when in fact the true
figure of less than 2% has been scientifically for 25 years. They have also
deceived the public into thinking that the consensus of solid scientific fact
proves homosexuals are born gay. The truth is that both homosexual sex and
adultery are actions that result from moral choices you make at that moment.
Even if homosexuals were born that way, God calls all men, both homosexuals and
heterosexuals, to live in a way different from what they feel for the moment.
It is this self control that causes heterosexuals to not commit adultery, even
though they were born with the desire to do so. So the question of whether
homosexuals are born that way is irrelevant because heterosexuals are born with
a natural desire to commit adultery but because of morals, do not.

11.If Bill C-250 passes, Christians can continue
to condemn adultery and premarital sex, as sin, but not homosexual sex. If they
do, they will be charged of "promoting hatred against an identifiable
group." Suddenly Christians will get a criminal record and be classed
among the likes of Earnest Zundel and the KKK. In other words, a Christian can
criticize two unmarried heterosexual teenagers for having sex, unless they are
homosexual, then they go to jail. The result is a moral paradox where sex
between two unmarried persons is sin, unless they are homosexual, then its OK.

12.We, the majority, who oppose Bill C-250, will
no doubt be called, “homophobic”. And before you get upset, consider that a
word is defined by its usage. The Gay agenda labels as “homophobic”, anyone who
is opposes the gay agenda to change the definition of marriage. So this means
over 70% of the Canadian population are homophobic. Let these 70% plus, of
“homophobic Canadians” wear the label with pride!

13.Homosexual activists, politicians and the
media have given assurances that if Bill C-250 passes, it will not hinder free
speech. Yet, religious and political leaders who have spoken out against gay
marriage recently, have been attacked. This shows the true intent of Bill
C-250.

14.Gay agenda promoters “righteously” claim that
Gay marriage is all about equality, meaning homosexuals should have the right
to marry like normal couples, as a matter of equality. I don’t see Gay agenda
lobbyists, defending the rights of polygamists or pedophiles who are prevented
from marrying. When will gay activists demand polygamists or pedophiles to be
allowed to marry on the basis of equality?

15.Prime Minister Jean Chretien and gay activists
appear to take pride in defending the right of religious leaders to refuse to
marry gays. Yet, it is clear that the supreme court, based upon Trudeau’s gay
constitutional amendments, has no choice but to deny such a right exists. I
predict this will force the Prime Minister to invoke the “notwithstanding
clause”. Church leaders could no more discriminate against someone solely on
the basis of being homosexual, as they could on the basis of sex or skin
colour. All three are on an equal level of protection. However, if I am wrong,
and the supreme court does grant the right to religious leaders to discriminate
against people on the basis of their sexual orientation by refusing to marry
them, then these same leaders also have the right to publicly state WHY they
discriminate against homosexuals. In this way, Christians can reclaim their
right of freedom of speech!

16.We often wonder what it means to be Canadian.
Well, one of the trademarks of most Canadians, is their unwillingness to speak
their opinions on key moral issues. Worse still, many Canadians really have no
opinions at all! I often hear stuff like, “each to his own” “I don’t know” “I
just go with the flow”. Well its time to speak up! With homosexuality being
promoted by force under the threat of legal action in kindergarten to our 5
year old children, and Bill C-250 that removes the right of anyone in Canada to
speak against the homosexual lifestyle under the threat of jail, we are clearly
on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps the following words that are spoken
at every marriage ceremony are appropriate right now: “Speak up now, or forever
hold your peace”! I fear Canadians are placing themselves under the curse of
God as a nation.

17.Teaching our children that homosexuality is
normal. Homosexuality violates society’s definition of normal, since it
represents less than 1% of the population. Homosexuality violates evolution,
because it represents exactly the opposite of Darwin's “survival of the
fittest, given that homosexual relationships do not reproduce. Homosexual sex
violates the Bible, since it is clearly identified as sin.